I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
port.

If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP
altogether - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will
be able touse the compiler.

Is my assumption correct?

Thanks

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:28:11 -0700 (PDT), (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
>it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
>port.

I have a printer that uses the parallel port, and XP uses it. In fact it is
one of those printers that only prints under XP, so any printed output from a
DOS progrm has to be imported into a Windows program in order to actually
appear in hard copy -- just one of those ways in which Windows slows one down.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

paoloricardo wrote:
> I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow it
> to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel port.

Have you tried the compiler in 'Compatability Mode'?
Right-click compiler.exe > Properties > /Compatability\
[Y] Run this program in compatability mode for:
Win 95 (or any of the others)
Qbasic and Visual Basic 3.1 work in this mode.

> If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP altogether
> - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will be able touse
> the compiler.
> Is my assumption correct?

Why not try it, to remove all uncertainty?
Be advised that DOS cannot access NTFS formatted drives.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
> it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
> port.
>
> If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP
> altogether - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will
> be able touse the compiler.
>
> Is my assumption correct?
>
> Thanks

I'd say the best thing for you to do would be to try it and see. It's
not going to hurt anything. Otherwise you're likely to get a variety of
answers here, probably not as applicable as you'd like them to be.

There some caveats of course:
Actual DOS can not read NTFS drives, so unless you already have a FAT
partition, you will have to create one. That's probably your biggest
stumbling block unless you are already familiar with how to do that. Of,
if it has the means to access NTFS as part of the program; I doubt it.

Whether it will be able to access the parallel port or not depends on
how it tries to access it. IFF the program is XP aware at all, or NTFS
aware, then it might work.

Have you tried installing it and then setting XP's compatability mode to
win98 or win95? What operating systems is it designed to work on? It's
a long shot, but it might work in one of the compatability modes. But
.... if it's a DOS-only program, you may still need to create a FAT
partition for it to work in.

If you understand how to accomplish the above, you might have a chance
to get it going. If not, I have a feeling you won't do well.

If you come back, try giving some specs on the program AND your machine;
you actually provided nothing concrete to work with.

HTH,

Twayne

On Apr 8, 1:40*am, "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
> paolorica...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
> > it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
> > port.
>
> > If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP
> > altogether - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will
> > be able touse the compiler.
>
> > Is my assumption correct?
>
> > Thanks
>
> I'd say the best thing for you to do would be to try it and see. *It's
> not going to hurt anything. *Otherwise you're likely to get a variety of
> answers here, probably not as applicable as you'd like them to be.
>
> There some caveats of course:
> * *Actual DOS can not read NTFS drives, so unless you already have a FAT
> partition, you will have to create one. That's probably your biggest
> stumbling block unless you are already familiar with how to do that. Of,
> if it has the means to access NTFS as part of the program; I doubt it.
>
> Whether it will be able to access the parallel port or not depends on
> how it tries to access it. *IFF the program is XP aware at all, or NTFS
> aware, then it might work.
>
> Have you tried installing it and then setting XP's compatability mode to
> win98 or win95? *What operating systems is it designed to work on? *It's
> a long shot, but it might work in one of the compatability modes. *But
> ... if it's a DOS-only program, you may still need to create a FAT
> partition for it to work in.
>
> If you understand how to accomplish the above, you might have a chance
> to get it going. *If not, I have a feeling you won't do well.
>
> If you come back, try giving some specs on the program AND your machine;
> you actually provided nothing concrete to work with.
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne

Twayne and Al Falfa: the compiler can produce applications for DOS,
Windows (3.0 and up but not NT/XP) and OS/2 so I guess Win 95
compatibility mode is worth a try.

I'm a bit hazy about the FAT partition bit. My C:\ drive is the
primary partition NTFS formatted. On the same physical disk is a D:\
drive logical partition, FAT32 formatted.

Presumably if I booted from DOS, then the D:\ drive would be 'seen' by
DOS as the C:\ drive (since DOS can't 'see' NTFS drives.) Is that
correct? And would this count as a FAT partition for it to work?

Thanks

paoloricardo wrote:
> I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
> it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
> port.
> If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP
> altogether - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will
> be able touse the compiler.

Al Falfa wrote:
> Have you tried the compiler in 'Compatability Mode'?
> Right-click compiler.exe > Properties > /Compatability\
> [Y] Run this program in compatability mode for:
> Win 95 (or any of the others)
> Qbasic and Visual Basic 3.1 work in this mode.
> Why not try it, to remove all uncertainty?
> Be advised that DOS cannot access NTFS formatted drives.

paoloricardo wrote:
> Twayne and Al Falfa: the compiler can produce applications for DOS,
> Windows (3.0 and up but not NT/XP) and OS/2 so I guess Win 95
> compatibility mode is worth a try.
> I'm a bit hazy about the FAT partition bit. My C:\ drive is the
> primary partition NTFS formatted. On the same physical disk is a D:\
> drive logical partition, FAT32 formatted.
> Presumably if I booted from DOS, then the D:\ drive would be 'seen'
> by DOS as the C:\ drive (since DOS can't 'see' NTFS drives.) Is that
> correct? And would this count as a FAT partition for it to work?

Nobody can possibly know what will happen until you actually try
something. If you want to do all this *in DOS*, then just do it.
You will soon find out if DOS can 'see' your FAT32-formatted drive,
as well as what it thinks its drive letter is.

Under XP:
A well-behaved compiler will transparently access the file system
through the operating system - read/write text or binaries, using '8.3'
file naming. No problem, except for that pesky dongle.
What matters is the compatability mode needed for the compiler to work
in XP. If none of those let the compiler 'see' the dongle, then try
http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Main_Page

On Apr 8, 1:07*pm, Al Falfa <anonym...@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> paoloricardo wrote:
> > I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
> > it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
> > port.
> > If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP
> > altogether - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will
> > be able touse the compiler.
> Al Falfa wrote:
> > Have you tried the compiler in 'Compatability Mode'?
> > Right-click compiler.exe > Properties > /Compatability\
> > [Y] Run this program in compatability mode for:
> > *Win 95 (or any of the others)
> > Qbasic and Visual Basic 3.1 work in this mode.
> > Why not try it, to remove all uncertainty?
> > Be advised that DOS cannot access NTFS formatted drives.
> paoloricardo wrote:
> > Twayne and Al Falfa: the compiler can produce applications for DOS,
> > Windows (3.0 and up but not NT/XP) and OS/2 so I guess Win 95
> > compatibility mode is worth a try.
> > *I'm a bit hazy about the FAT partition bit. My C:\ drive is the
> > primary partition NTFS formatted. On the same physical disk is a D:\
> > drive logical partition, FAT32 formatted.
> > *Presumably if I booted from DOS, then the D:\ drive would be 'seen'
> > by DOS as the C:\ drive (since DOS can't 'see' NTFS drives.) Is that
> > correct? And would this count as a FAT partition for it to work?
>
> *Nobody can possibly know what will happen until you actually try
> something. If you want to do all this *in DOS*, then just do it.
> You will soon find out if DOS can 'see' your FAT32-formatted drive,
> as well as what it thinks its drive letter is.
>
> *Under XP:
> *A well-behaved compiler will transparently access the file system
> through the operating system - read/write text or binaries, using '8.3'
> file naming. No problem, except for that pesky dongle.
> *What matters is the compatability mode needed for the compiler to work
> in XP. If none of those let the compiler 'see' the dongle, then tryhttp://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Main_Page

Al Falfa: booting into DOS didn't work. Only drive a:\ was recognised.
Running in compatibilty mode didn't work either.

What did work was installing UserPort which is a kernel mode driver
which gives apps access to I/O ports. At the moment things seem to be
going well!

On Apr 8, 1:07*pm, Al Falfa <anonym...@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> paoloricardo wrote:
> > I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
> > it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
> > port.
> > If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP
> > altogether - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will
> > be able touse the compiler.
> Al Falfa wrote:
> > Have you tried the compiler in 'Compatability Mode'?
> > Right-click compiler.exe > Properties > /Compatability\
> > [Y] Run this program in compatability mode for:
> > *Win 95 (or any of the others)
> > Qbasic and Visual Basic 3.1 work in this mode.
> > Why not try it, to remove all uncertainty?
> > Be advised that DOS cannot access NTFS formatted drives.
> paoloricardo wrote:
> > Twayne and Al Falfa: the compiler can produce applications for DOS,
> > Windows (3.0 and up but not NT/XP) and OS/2 so I guess Win 95
> > compatibility mode is worth a try.
> > *I'm a bit hazy about the FAT partition bit. My C:\ drive is the
> > primary partition NTFS formatted. On the same physical disk is a D:\
> > drive logical partition, FAT32 formatted.
> > *Presumably if I booted from DOS, then the D:\ drive would be 'seen'
> > by DOS as the C:\ drive (since DOS can't 'see' NTFS drives.) Is that
> > correct? And would this count as a FAT partition for it to work?
>
> *Nobody can possibly know what will happen until you actually try
> something. If you want to do all this *in DOS*, then just do it.
> You will soon find out if DOS can 'see' your FAT32-formatted drive,
> as well as what it thinks its drive letter is.
>
> *Under XP:
> *A well-behaved compiler will transparently access the file system
> through the operating system - read/write text or binaries, using '8.3'
> file naming. No problem, except for that pesky dongle.
> *What matters is the compatability mode needed for the compiler to work
> in XP. If none of those let the compiler 'see' the dongle, then tryhttp://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Main_Page

Al Falfa: booting into DOS didn't work. Only drive a:\ was recognised.
Running in compatibilty mode didn't work either.

What did work was installing UserPort which is a kernel mode driver
which gives apps access to I/O ports. At the moment things seem to be
going well!

paoloricardo wrote:
> I have a DOS compiler which requires a parallel port dongle to allow
> it to operate. i know that XP will not allow access to the parallel
> port.
> If I boot into DOS (using a DOS boot disk) - thus avoiding XP
> altogether - I presume that the dongle will be recognised and I will
> be able to use the compiler.
....
Al Falfa wrote:
> ... You will soon find out if DOS can 'see' your FAT32-formatted drive,
> as well as what it thinks its drive letter is.
> Â*Under XP: ...
> Â*What matters is the compatability mode needed for the compiler to
> work in XP. If none of those let the compiler 'see' the dongle, then try
> http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Main_Page

paoloricardo wrote:
> Al Falfa: booting into DOS didn't work. Only drive a:\ was recognised.
> Running in compatibilty mode didn't work either.
> What did work was installing UserPort which is a kernel mode driver
> which gives apps access to I/O ports. At the moment things seem to be
> going well!

Good work! Thanks for reporting back.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
....
> Twayne and Al Falfa: the compiler can produce applications for DOS,
> Windows (3.0 and up but not NT/XP) and OS/2 so I guess Win 95
> compatibility mode is worth a try.
>
> I'm a bit hazy about the FAT partition bit. My C:\ drive is the
> primary partition NTFS formatted. On the same physical disk is a D:\
> drive logical partition, FAT32 formatted.

Great; you're all set.

>
> Presumably if I booted from DOS, then the D:\ drive would be 'seen' by
> DOS as the C:\ drive (since DOS can't 'see' NTFS drives.) Is that
> correct? And would this count as a FAT partition for it to work?

Not sure it'll be seen as drive C: but that's becuase of my own
ignorance. The times I've booted with a DOS 6.22 disk, I think the drive
letters remained the same. You'll be able to tell easily enough.

But yes, that will cover the FAT partition you need.

>
> Thanks

No offense, but in the future, please include that kind of info up
front. You'd be a lot further down the trail by now if you had.

Twayne